Anti-atheism bullshit from a 'Professor of Catholic Studies' (LOL!)
Hypatia
Alwyn
"Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
> ondon
Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with the
following sentence:
'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
Alwyn
Hypatia
news:alwyn-F2D6D4....@unknown.hwng.net...
Congratulations on being able to swallow so much self-serving mental
excrement without gagging.
H.
pg
Grab this Headline Animator
"Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V6yTk.87496$mr4....@newsfe19.ams2...
:-)
And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held both the
carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by. I'm
not surprised that Alwyn hasn't cottoned on to this fact, from his previous
posts.
As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously programmed
kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game theory -
reciprocal altruism.
pg
http://frogblog-thaidings.blogspot.com/
Alwyn
wrote:
>
> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
Leonardo to you. Not everybody had a surname in those days, and Leonardo
was in any case born out of wedlock. "Da Vinci" simply means "from
Vinci", to distinguish him from a Leonardo from Pistoia or a Leonardo
from Pisa, for instance.
> Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held both the
> carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
I think you may be right about Leonardo. See, for instance:
<http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Leonardo_DaVinci.html>
This may possibly apply to Michelangelo also, though it seems to me that
his Dante sonnets speak otherwise.
(Incidentally, people who erroneously give Leonardo a surname hardly
ever mention Michelangelo's, which was Buonarroti and serves to
distinguish him from, among others, the painter Michelangelo Merisi [da
Caravaggio].)
> For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
> Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by. I'm
> not surprised that Alwyn hasn't cottoned on to this fact, from his previous
> posts.
I don't know if that's a fact or not; I can only say that I find a
unique nobility in much religious art.
From the comment above, you must believe that I am very stupid not to
agree with your about everything!
> As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
> demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
> afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously programmed
> kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game theory -
> reciprocal altruism.
I think a lot of Christians would say that they do good for the glory of
God, not for any self-serving reasons. I think it would be churlish of
us not to believe that at least some of them are sincere.
Alwyn
Hypatia
>
> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
> Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held both
> the carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
>
> For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
> Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by.
Absolutely. The point as usually made is really as wrong as it is
incomplete. Far from religious imagery or text being a 'starting point',
it's really the human psyche's conscious and unconscious workings that give
rise to the images and stories that then get fossilized into religions: when
these images and stories get taken for 'facts' they lose their artistic
truth-value and become merely another pile of wrong beliefs. When an artist
later seizes hold of such images and stories and uses them as the basis (or
the pretext!) for communicative art, the wrong beliefs are divested of their
wrongness and restored to their psychologically expressive and emotionally
truthful function -- and thus their emptily 'religious' significance
disappears. Example: Bach's 'St Matthew Passion' tells you about you, not
about 'Jesus', and makes you believe in Bach, not in Christian mythology.(*)
'Christianity' simply provided some of the material he formed it from, some
of the money he lived on while writing it, and somewhere to have it
performed when it was done.
(*) Just as Wagner's 'Ring' tells you about you, not about 'Wotan', and
makes you believe in Wagner, not in Norse mythology!
>
> As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
> demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
> afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously programmed
> kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game
> theory - reciprocal altruism.
I couldn't improve on that formulation!
H.
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <TjvTk.56427$me2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
> "Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
>> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
>> ondon
>
>Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with the
>following sentence:
I don't.
>'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
>to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
>understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
>Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
>those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
>witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
>reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
Only if Christianity means anything to you.
It's typical Christian self-aggrandaisment.
Christianity also bequeathed 2000 years of anti-Semitism culminating
in the holocaust, the Thirty Years War, the horrors of the
Reformation, the Crusades, the genocides of the conquest of the
Americas etc. It was even used to justify black slavery.
Which most Christians are in serious denial about.
>Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee
>
>I think a lot of Christians would say that they do good for the glory of
>God, not for any self-serving reasons. I think it would be churlish of
>us not to believe that at least some of them are sincere.
They pretend they do. But spreading the word is the primary purpose.
L.Roberts
> In article <gfmbe0$pf...@aioe.org>, "pg" <p...@alpesprovence.net>
A few years back I played around with writing poetry, and, among other
things, wrote two poems from the point of view of a fervent believer,
expressly for sale to xianity, fully calculated to sucker them in,
with the further intention, should my poems gain popularity, of, at a
later time, coming out with the truth and laughing at them for being
suckered in by someone who thinks they and their religion sucks, and
who did not believe a word of the religioustic drivel that he'd
written. Oh, damn, now they'll, should I ever decide to publish, be on
the look out.
L.Roberts
aa # 2258
Sleepalot
Really? I can't see it, myself. Can you point it out, please?
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
pg
Grab this Headline Animatornews:alwyn-E3CCDA....@unknown.hwng.net...
> In article <gfmbe0$pf6$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
>
> Leonardo to you. Not everybody had a surname in those days, and Leonardo
> was in any case born out of wedlock. "Da Vinci" simply means "from
> Vinci", to distinguish him from a Leonardo from Pistoia or a Leonardo
> from Pisa, for instance.
I'm a genealogist, multilingual, a professional translator and interpreter,
and someone who once lived in Tuscany. I simply referred to him in the
abbreviated form that is familiar to many people. Are you able to understand
that?
>> Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held both
>> the
>> carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
>
> I think you may be right about Leonardo. See, for instance:
> <http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Leonardo_DaVinci.html>
> This may possibly apply to Michelangelo also, though it seems to me that
> his Dante sonnets speak otherwise.
>
> (Incidentally, people who erroneously give Leonardo a surname hardly
> ever mention Michelangelo's, which was Buonarroti and serves to
> distinguish him from, among others, the painter Michelangelo Merisi [da
> Caravaggio].)
Thank you. You've just made yourself look rather foolish. Do you understand
why?
>> For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
>> Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by. I'm
>> not surprised that Alwyn hasn't cottoned on to this fact, from his
>> previous
>> posts.
>
> I don't know if that's a fact or not; I can only say that I find a
> unique nobility in much religious art.
Well bully for you. There also is much unique nobility in art that has no
religious connotations whatsoever. So your point is?
> From the comment above, you must believe that I am very stupid not to
> agree with your about everything!
No. But I do sometimes think that you are boneheaded, period.
>> As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
>> demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
>> afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously programmed
>> kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game
>> theory -
>> reciprocal altruism.
>
> I think a lot of Christians would say that they do good for the glory of
> God, not for any self-serving reasons. I think it would be churlish of
> us not to believe that at least some of them are sincere.
And the point of this useless truism is what, exactly?
pg
http://frogblog-thaidings.blogspot.com/
Alwyn
wrote:
> Grab this Headline Animator
> "Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:alwyn-E3CCDA....@unknown.hwng.net...
> > In article <gfmbe0$pf6$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
> >
> > Leonardo to you. Not everybody had a surname in those days, and Leonardo
> > was in any case born out of wedlock. "Da Vinci" simply means "from
> > Vinci", to distinguish him from a Leonardo from Pistoia or a Leonardo
> > from Pisa, for instance.
>
> I'm a genealogist, multilingual, a professional translator and interpreter,
> and someone who once lived in Tuscany.
Well, how's that for blowing your own trumpet!
> I simply referred to him in the
> abbreviated form that is familiar to many people. Are you able to understand
> that?
'Leonardo' or 'Leonardo da Vinci' are the correct forms. Do you really
want to associate yourself with the likes of Dan Brown?
> >> Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held both
> >> the
> >> carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
> >
> > I think you may be right about Leonardo. See, for instance:
> > <http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Leonardo_DaVinci.html>
> > This may possibly apply to Michelangelo also, though it seems to me that
> > his Dante sonnets speak otherwise.
> >
> > (Incidentally, people who erroneously give Leonardo a surname hardly
> > ever mention Michelangelo's, which was Buonarroti and serves to
> > distinguish him from, among others, the painter Michelangelo Merisi [da
> > Caravaggio].)
>
> Thank you. You've just made yourself look rather foolish. Do you understand
> why?
It is no doubt a subjective impression. But please feel free to expand
on it if you so wish. I promise I won't be offended!
> >> For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
> >> Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by. I'm
> >> not surprised that Alwyn hasn't cottoned on to this fact, from his
> >> previous
> >> posts.
> >
> > I don't know if that's a fact or not; I can only say that I find a
> > unique nobility in much religious art.
>
> Well bully for you. There also is much unique nobility in art that has no
> religious connotations whatsoever. So your point is?
The point is that what I feel is important for me. J. S. Bach, for
instance, is at his most profound in his religious music, which happened
to be Christian, while Mozart's best religious music is Masonic. I feel
no need for you to concur.
> > From the comment above, you must believe that I am very stupid not to
> > agree with your about everything!
>
> No. But I do sometimes think that you are boneheaded, period.
Hehehe, please explain the difference!
> >> As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
> >> demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
> >> afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously programmed
> >> kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game
> >> theory -
> >> reciprocal altruism.
> >
> > I think a lot of Christians would say that they do good for the glory of
> > God, not for any self-serving reasons. I think it would be churlish of
> > us not to believe that at least some of them are sincere.
>
> And the point of this useless truism is what, exactly?
It is not a useless truism. Religion can convince people that certain
things are greater than their own self-interest and so be inspired to
great sacrifices, which we consider noble.
Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
> Grab this Headline Animator
>"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:alwyn-E3CCDA....@unknown.hwng.net...
>> In article <gfmbe0$pf6$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
>>
>> Leonardo to you. Not everybody had a surname in those days, and Leonardo
>> was in any case born out of wedlock. "Da Vinci" simply means "from
>> Vinci", to distinguish him from a Leonardo from Pistoia or a Leonardo
>> from Pisa, for instance.
>
>I'm a genealogist, multilingual, a professional translator and interpreter,
>and someone who once lived in Tuscany. I simply referred to him in the
>abbreviated form that is familiar to many people. Are you able to understand
>that?
He was just being silly, thinking he made a point. Everybody knew whom
you meant.
>>> Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held both
>>> the
>>> carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
>>
>> I think you may be right about Leonardo. See, for instance:
>> <http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Leonardo_DaVinci.html>
>> This may possibly apply to Michelangelo also, though it seems to me that
>> his Dante sonnets speak otherwise.
>>
>> (Incidentally, people who erroneously give Leonardo a surname hardly
>> ever mention Michelangelo's, which was Buonarroti and serves to
>> distinguish him from, among others, the painter Michelangelo Merisi [da
>> Caravaggio].)
>
>Thank you. You've just made yourself look rather foolish. Do you understand
>why?
Probably not.
>>> For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
>>> Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by. I'm
>>> not surprised that Alwyn hasn't cottoned on to this fact, from his
>>> previous
>>> posts.
>>
>> I don't know if that's a fact or not; I can only say that I find a
>> unique nobility in much religious art.
>
>Well bully for you. There also is much unique nobility in art that has no
>religious connotations whatsoever. So your point is?
>
>> From the comment above, you must believe that I am very stupid not to
>> agree with your about everything!
>
>No. But I do sometimes think that you are boneheaded, period.
It's a symptom of kookdom when somebody says they are treated as
stupid for "not agreeing with you about everything".
Which only reinforces what had already been concluded.
For example most Christian "arguments" posted in atheist newsgroups
are an insult to the intelligence.
>>> As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
>>> demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
>>> afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously programmed
>>> kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game
>>> theory -
>>> reciprocal altruism.
>>
>> I think a lot of Christians would say that they do good for the glory of
>> God, not for any self-serving reasons. I think it would be churlish of
>> us not to believe that at least some of them are sincere.
>
>And the point of this useless truism is what, exactly?
Most Christian "good works" are designed to spread the word.
If they were genuine they would not eg make the homeless join in a
service before feeding them.
Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> It's a symptom of kookdom when somebody says they are treated as
> stupid for "not agreeing with you about everything".
What is a kook exactly? It's an American term; I think 'crank' is the
British equivalent. Anyway, I think the basic meaning is somebody who
holds a minority view. For what it's worth, I think 'pg' is in the
minority here. Most people are not militant atheists and do not think
ill of the prevailing religions, even if they don't believe in them.
Alwyn
John Smith
"pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net> wrote in message news:gfmbe0$pf6$1...@aioe.org...
Someone should make up a list of all the things man would not be able to do
without the help of religion ................. like "think", sculpt, paint,
have any morals, etc..
Christopher A. Lee
>It is not a useless truism. Religion can convince people that certain
>things are greater than their own self-interest and so be inspired to
>great sacrifices, which we consider noble.
And it can also make otherwise decent people do extraordinary evil.
What's your point?
>Alwyn
I often wonder why you bend over backwards to defend Christianity
uncritically.
Almost like a Christian
Alwyn
> uncritically.
>
> Almost like a Christian
Because I am a Christian manqué. All I lack is the necessary capacity
for self-deception.
Apart from that, our current culture, whether we like it or not, is the
product of two thousand years of Christianity. Our history is, I think,
incomprehensible without an understanding of that tradition.
Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <unoth4hcpcgroal25...@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> It's a symptom of kookdom when somebody says they are treated as
>> stupid for "not agreeing with you about everything".
>
>What is a kook exactly? It's an American term; I think 'crank' is the
>British equivalent. Anyway, I think the basic meaning is somebody who
>holds a minority view.
No.
But whether you are a kook or a crank, it still describes you.
Confirmed when you imagine it's anything to do with a minority view.
> For what it's worth, I think 'pg' is in the
>minority here. Most people are not militant atheists and do not think
>ill of the prevailing religions, even if they don't believe in them.
But they don't see them through rose-tinted spectacles the way you do.
In fact they don't give them a thought until they become obtrusive.
Even the ones you pretend are militant.
You don't seem to understand the difference between an action and a
reaction that wouldn't even have happened.
>Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <frpth4t0j0mor3nt4...@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> I often wonder why you bend over backwards to defend Christianity
>> uncritically.
>>
>> Almost like a Christian
>
>Because I am a Christian manqué. All I lack is the necessary capacity
>for self-deception.
Yet you do, when you look at Christianity thriough rose-tinted
spectacles.
>Apart from that, our current culture, whether we like it or not, is the
>product of two thousand years of Christianity. Our history is, I think,
>incomprehensible without an understanding of that tradition.
You play up what you think are the good parts and ignore the bad
parts.
>Alwyn
Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:16:33 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <unoth4hcpcgroal25...@4ax.com>,
> > Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a symptom of kookdom when somebody says they are treated as
> >> stupid for "not agreeing with you about everything".
> >
> >What is a kook exactly? It's an American term; I think 'crank' is the
> >British equivalent. Anyway, I think the basic meaning is somebody who
> >holds a minority view.
>
> No.
>
> But whether you are a kook or a crank, it still describes you.
>
> Confirmed when you imagine it's anything to do with a minority view.
A kook or a crank is somebody who holds eccentric views? Eccentric means
far off from the centre, I think. In that sense, I think the militant
atheism of Dawkins et al. is highly eccentric and therefore 'kooky'.
> > For what it's worth, I think 'pg' is in
> > the
> >minority here. Most people are not militant atheists and do not think
> >ill of the prevailing religions, even if they don't believe in them.
>
> But they don't see them through rose-tinted spectacles the way you do.
I suspect in fact that most people have a higher opinion of the churches
than i have. But, whatever...
> In fact they don't give them a thought until they become obtrusive.
That is right. Most people in fact belong to the church of the Apathetic
Agnostic: 'We don't know and we don't care'.
<http://apatheticagnostic.org/>
Except of course that the people who created that site must have cared
enough to put in the effort!
> Even the ones you pretend are militant.
That remains to be seen. Personally I just shrug my shoulders when the
churches speak out against abortion, contraception or homosexuality,
knowing that few people pay heed to them. On the other hand, I applaud
them when they criticise unnecessary wars and the glorification of
selfishness.
> You don't seem to understand the difference between an action and a
> reaction that wouldn't even have happened.
I'm not sure I follow. You are of course welcome to explain.
Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <ajqth41jlu8v5cr9k...@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:16:33 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <unoth4hcpcgroal25...@4ax.com>,
>> > Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's a symptom of kookdom when somebody says they are treated as
>> >> stupid for "not agreeing with you about everything".
>> >
>> >What is a kook exactly? It's an American term; I think 'crank' is the
>> >British equivalent. Anyway, I think the basic meaning is somebody who
>> >holds a minority view.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> But whether you are a kook or a crank, it still describes you.
>>
>> Confirmed when you imagine it's anything to do with a minority view.
>
>A kook or a crank is somebody who holds eccentric views? Eccentric means
Where did I say that, liar who puts words into other people's mouths
he knows they never said?
>far off from the centre, I think. In that sense, I think the militant
>atheism of Dawkins et al. is highly eccentric and therefore 'kooky'.
What "militant atheism of Dawkins et al"?
Why do you pretend you don't understand the natural human reaction
from people who no longer put up with bullshit?
>> > For what it's worth, I think 'pg' is in
>> > the
>> >minority here. Most people are not militant atheists and do not think
>> >ill of the prevailing religions, even if they don't believe in them.
>>
>> But they don't see them through rose-tinted spectacles the way you do.
>
>I suspect in fact that most people have a higher opinion of the churches
>than i have. But, whatever...
Whet the heck did you expect when you said you agreed with the
Catholic apologist's self-aggrandaising bullshit in an atheist
newsgroup?
That's the sort of thing which makes you stupid.
Not your lie about "anybody who disagrees".
>> In fact they don't give them a thought until they become obtrusive.
>
>That is right. Most people in fact belong to the church of the Apathetic
>Agnostic: 'We don't know and we don't care'.
How many times do you need reminding that people outside the Christian
paradigm have nothing to "not know", nothing to "believe does't" exist
or even "not believe in", let alone to "be apathetic about"?
It's simply somebody else's religion that non-Christians (not just
atheists) wouldn't give a thought to, if they could only live and let
live. But they can't.
We cannot be described as though Christian presumptions even applied
to us, because we are outside that paradigm.
Dragonblaze
[snip]
> It is not a useless truism. Religion can convince people that certain
> things are greater than their own self-interest and so be inspired to
> great sacrifices, which we consider noble.
Yeah, the suicide bombers being prime example of that kind of
thinking. Only, outside their own group, nobody considers them noble,
and for a very good reason.
pg
> In article <gfmnct$1ng$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Grab this Headline Animator
>> "Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:alwyn-E3CCDA....@unknown.hwng.net...
>> > In article <gfmbe0$pf6$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
>> >
>> > Leonardo to you. Not everybody had a surname in those days, and
>> > Leonardo
>> > was in any case born out of wedlock. "Da Vinci" simply means "from
>> > Vinci", to distinguish him from a Leonardo from Pistoia or a Leonardo
>> > from Pisa, for instance.
>>
>> I'm a genealogist, multilingual, a professional translator and
>> interpreter,
>> and someone who once lived in Tuscany.
>
> Well, how's that for blowing your own trumpet!
There's something special about living abroad, having a hobby, doing an
ordinary job, and speaking the lingo? Well you learn something new every
day.
>> I simply referred to him in the
>> abbreviated form that is familiar to many people. Are you able to
>> understand
>> that?
>
> 'Leonardo' or 'Leonardo da Vinci' are the correct forms. Do you really
> want to associate yourself with the likes of Dan Brown?
Don't give a monkey's who people with failed intellectual pretensions choose
to associate me with, to be quite frank. Your comments say a great deal more
about you, than me.
>> >> Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held
>> >> both
>> >> the
>> >> carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
>> >
>> > I think you may be right about Leonardo. See, for instance:
>> > <http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Leonardo_DaVinci.html>
>> > This may possibly apply to Michelangelo also, though it seems to me
>> > that
>> > his Dante sonnets speak otherwise.
>> >
>> > (Incidentally, people who erroneously give Leonardo a surname hardly
>> > ever mention Michelangelo's, which was Buonarroti and serves to
>> > distinguish him from, among others, the painter Michelangelo Merisi [da
>> > Caravaggio].)
>>
>> Thank you. You've just made yourself look rather foolish. Do you
>> understand
>> why?
>
> It is no doubt a subjective impression. But please feel free to expand
> on it if you so wish. I promise I won't be offended!
The answer is no then. I thought not.
>> >> For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
>> >> Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by.
>> >> I'm
>> >> not surprised that Alwyn hasn't cottoned on to this fact, from his
>> >> previous
>> >> posts.
>> >
>> > I don't know if that's a fact or not; I can only say that I find a
>> > unique nobility in much religious art.
>>
>> Well bully for you. There also is much unique nobility in art that has no
>> religious connotations whatsoever. So your point is?
>
> The point is that what I feel is important for me. J. S. Bach, for
> instance, is at his most profound in his religious music, which happened
> to be Christian, while Mozart's best religious music is Masonic. I feel
> no need for you to concur.
Let's not bother with evidence, so longs as it 'feels' important to you.
This is how Van Gogh (Vincent to the pedantic) - put it. "I can very well do
without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, ill as I am,
do without something which is greater than I, which is my life - the power
to create."
Inspiration is not born of religion, it uses religion as a tool to fulfil
its potential. Artists are driven first and foremost by an all-consuming
passion to create. Whatever means is useful to that end. Awe and wonder
serve equally well. Sometimes even fear and despair. Goya (that's Francisco,
not George who lives next door but one) for example may have been nominally
a Catholic, but the Inquisitors nearly did for him too. And religion was
clearly not the inspiration for what some would consider his most amazing
works.
I'm beginning to wonder if you actually understand what creativity, allied
to the desire to excel, is all about.
>> > From the comment above, you must believe that I am very stupid not to
>> > agree with your about everything!
>>
>> No. But I do sometimes think that you are boneheaded, period.
>
> Hehehe, please explain the difference!
Look at your exchanges with most others here, and work it out.
>> >> As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
>> >> demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
>> >> afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously
>> >> programmed
>> >> kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game
>> >> theory -
>> >> reciprocal altruism.
>> >
>> > I think a lot of Christians would say that they do good for the glory
>> > of
>> > God, not for any self-serving reasons. I think it would be churlish of
>> > us not to believe that at least some of them are sincere.
>>
>> And the point of this useless truism is what, exactly?
>
> It is not a useless truism. Religion can convince people that certain
> things are greater than their own self-interest and so be inspired to
> great sacrifices, which we consider noble.
You've just put your foot in it - again.
pg
http://frogblog-thaidings.blogspot.com/
Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:55:50 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A kook or a crank is somebody who holds eccentric views? Eccentric means
>
> Where did I say that, liar who puts words into other people's mouths
> he knows they never said?
I never said that, which makes you the liar, not me.
> >far off from the centre, I think. In that sense, I think the militant
> >atheism of Dawkins et al. is highly eccentric and therefore 'kooky'.
>
> What "militant atheism of Dawkins et al"?
I didn't invent the phrase, but it seems to have become common.
'Militant atheism' seems to correlate with hating religion.
> Why do you pretend you don't understand the natural human reaction
> from people who no longer put up with bullshit?
The natural human reaction is to shrug one's shoulders and get on withh
life.
> >I suspect in fact that most people have a higher opinion of the churches
> >than i have. But, whatever...
>
> Whet the heck did you expect when you said you agreed with the
> Catholic apologist's self-aggrandaising bullshit in an atheist
> newsgroup?
I thought she was a rather unorthodox Catholic apologist. If she was
confronted with the Pope, I doubt they'd have much in common.
> That's the sort of thing which makes you stupid.
Why, thank you!
> Not your lie about "anybody who disagrees".
Lies are intentional. The fact that you disagree with something I state
does not make me a liar, even if you can prove that it is true.
> >> In fact they don't give them a thought until they become obtrusive.
> >
> >That is right. Most people in fact belong to the church of the Apathetic
> >Agnostic: 'We don't know and we don't care'.
>
> How many times do you need reminding that people outside the Christian
> paradigm have nothing to "not know", nothing to "believe does't" exist
> or even "not believe in", let alone to "be apathetic about"?
This seems entirely vacuous. You are asserting a tautology.
> It's simply somebody else's religion that non-Christians (not just
> atheists) wouldn't give a thought to, if they could only live and let
> live. But they can't.
Agreed. Where did I seem to disagree?
> We cannot be described as though Christian presumptions even applied
> to us, because we are outside that paradigm.
Of course you can! People within that paradigm can thus describe you. Of
course, whether or not you care about it is up to you.
Alwyn
Alwyn
wrote:
>
> >> I'm a genealogist, multilingual, a professional translator and
> >> interpreter,
> >> and someone who once lived in Tuscany.
> >
> > Well, how's that for blowing your own trumpet!
>
> There's something special about living abroad, having a hobby, doing an
> ordinary job, and speaking the lingo? Well you learn something new every
> day.
If it was so ordinary, why did you bother to mention it?
Honestly, Pete, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Give up now
before you embarrass yourself irredeemably!
Alwyn
pg
> In article <gfmva5$stc$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm a genealogist, multilingual, a professional translator and
>> >> interpreter,
>> >> and someone who once lived in Tuscany.
>> >
>> > Well, how's that for blowing your own trumpet!
>>
>> There's something special about living abroad, having a hobby, doing an
>> ordinary job, and speaking the lingo? Well you learn something new every
>> day.
>
> If it was so ordinary, why did you bother to mention it?
Try because you seem to need a lot of helping in spotting the obviously more
viable alternatives to your erroneous assumptions?
> Honestly, Pete, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Give up now
> before you embarrass yourself irredeemably!
Says the man so incapable of holding his own in debate that he has snipped
the bulk of the post in order to run away and hide.
You think people won't notice? You now look a complete fool.
pg
http://frogblog-thaidings.blogspot.com/
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <ffuth4pe39kbse27a...@4ax.com>,
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:55:50 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >A kook or a crank is somebody who holds eccentric views? Eccentric means
>>
>> Where did I say that, liar who puts words into other people's mouths
>> he knows they never said?
>
>I never said that, which makes you the liar, not me.
Was it some other liar also called Alwyn who asked "A kook or a crank
is somebody who holds eccentric views?"?
>> >far off from the centre, I think. In that sense, I think the militant
>> >atheism of Dawkins et al. is highly eccentric and therefore 'kooky'.
>>
>> What "militant atheism of Dawkins et al"?
>
>I didn't invent the phrase, but it seems to have become common.
>'Militant atheism' seems to correlate with hating religion.
A paranoid lie from somebody who can't think outside his religious box
and refuses to admit that people could react negatively to the
imposition and intrusion of somebody else's religion.
>> Why do you pretend you don't understand the natural human reaction
>> from people who no longer put up with bullshit?
>
>The natural human reaction is to shrug one's shoulders and get on withh
>life.
The natural human reaction to being pushed is to push back, imbecile.
>> >I suspect in fact that most people have a higher opinion of the churches
>> >than i have. But, whatever...
>>
>> Whet the heck did you expect when you said you agreed with the
>> Catholic apologist's self-aggrandaising bullshit in an atheist
>> newsgroup?
>
>I thought she was a rather unorthodox Catholic apologist. If she was
>confronted with the Pope, I doubt they'd have much in common.
Another non-answer.
It was self-aggrandizing bullshit that ignored Christianity's bloody
history.
Again, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU SAID YOU AGREED WITH HER ONE-SIDED
BULLSHIT IN AN ATHEIST GROUP?
>> That's the sort of thing which makes you stupid.
>
>Why, thank you!
You're proud to be stupid?
>> Not your lie about "anybody who disagrees".
>
>Lies are intentional. The fact that you disagree with something I state
>does not make me a liar, even if you can prove that it is true.
It was intentional.
You deliberately lied when you said "anybody with a different
opinion.
And you admitted as much when you refused to say what reaction you
expected when you agreed with the Catholic topologist's bullshit in an
atheist newsgroup.
>> >> In fact they don't give them a thought until they become obtrusive.
>> >
>> >That is right. Most people in fact belong to the church of the Apathetic
>> >Agnostic: 'We don't know and we don't care'.
>>
>> How many times do you need reminding that people outside the Christian
>> paradigm have nothing to "not know", nothing to "believe does't" exist
>> or even "not believe in", let alone to "be apathetic about"?
>
>This seems entirely vacuous. You are asserting a tautology.
No, moron. Just telling YOU why YOU get both atheists and agnostics
wrong.
Or was it some other liar also called Alwyn who said "Most people in
fact belong to the church of the Apathetic Agnostic: 'We don't know
and we don't care'?
WHICH PRESUMES THERE IS SOMETHING TO NO, AND TO NOT CARE ABOUT.
Please try to show a little bit of intelligence and honesty.
>> It's simply somebody else's religion that non-Christians (not just
>> atheists) wouldn't give a thought to, if they could only live and let
>> live. But they can't.
>
>Agreed. Where did I seem to disagree?
SO WHY LIE ABOUT "MILITANT ATHEISTS"?
>> We cannot be described as though Christian presumptions even applied
>> to us, because we are outside that paradigm.
>
>Of course you can! People within that paradigm can thus describe you. Of
>course, whether or not you care about it is up to you.
Not in the real world outside their religion, imbecile.
WHICH IS WHERE ATHEISTS ALWAYS ARE, AND WHERE YOU ARE NOW.
Or even inside their religion when they get us wrong.
>Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee
<plonk> yet another thoroughly dishonest little shit.
>Alwyn
Alwyn
wrote:
> > before you embarrass yourself irredeemably!
>
> Says the man so incapable of holding his own in debate that he has snipped
> the bulk of the post in order to run away and hide.
You had nothing to say. What was there to respond to?
Alwyn
pg
Grab this Headline Animatornews:alwyn-9FE0CA....@unknown.hwng.net...
Oh, so you are a liar too. Even sadder than I thought.
Alwyn
wrote:
Stop it!
So far you have not engaged with my arguments but rather indulged in
personal attack. A more reasoned approach on your side might well have
stimulated a genuine debate. Ah well, it was not to be!
Alwyn
pg
I made a number of points, with reference to Goya and Van Gogh, for example.
I suggested that religion was clearly not required for inspiration in the
arts. Apparently Van Gogh agrees. You snipped those points.
Your comment above is therefore a lie, and you are a liar.
pg
Have you flipped entirely? You have no possible basis on which to make two
such ridiculous assertions. Are your debating skills so poor that you need
to create straw men of the arguments of others in order to argue with
yourself? Or do you simply not understand where I'm coming from?
Christopher A. Lee
Ian Smith
>
> The point is that what I feel is important for me. J. S. Bach, for
> instance, is at his most profound in his religious music, which happened
> to be Christian, while Mozart's best religious music is Masonic. I feel
> no need for you to concur.
.. and Verdi's Requiem is profound, but the man was an atheist.
regards, Ian
Christopher A. Lee
One has to wonder what "Alwyn" thinks he is doing.
>regards, Ian
Ian Smith
>
> Someone should make up a list of all the things man would not be able to do
> without the help of religion ................. like "think", sculpt, paint,
> have any morals, etc..
I can only assume that you are being ironic, but for the record...
Certainly sculpting and painting are not problems - I've just
successfully redecorated the dining room, and I'm an atheist.
Thinking is the thing that theists are least qualified to do, as
they appear to believe things that are not only not supported by
evidence but actually contradicted by it. That's why the atheist
viewpoint is frequently referred to as 'rational'.
Morals have nothing whatever to do with religion in any way
whatsoever. Religion simply absorbs society's morals and then adds a
number of pseudo morals of its own. As a result of these 'absolute'
morals we see travesties such as stoning, ritual throat slitting,
genital mutilation and refusals to allow children to accept life
saving blood transfusions.
regards, Ian
Alwyn
Ian Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
I didn't know that, but it seems you're right. Other examples of
agnostic or atheist composers writing religious music would be Fauré and
Elgar ('Dream of Gerontius').
However, the point is that all these composers were the product of a
well established Catholic culture, without which these works would have
been impossible.
Alwyn
John Smith
> On 15 Nov, 15:03, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It is not a useless truism. Religion can convince people that certain
>> things are greater than their own self-interest and so be inspired to
>> great sacrifices, which we consider noble.
Sure; can't argue with that!
For Pat Robertson, it's money and power.
For Tammy Faye, it's three pounds of make-up.
For Jimmy Swaggart, it's a hand job.
For the pope, it was joining the "Hitler Youth".
For the pope, it was stopping abortion - no matter WHAT other people think.
For the mormons (in california), it was stopping gay marriages (but multiple
marriages to underage girls was fine).
For one of the other religous fanatics, it was getting another manle to
shove it up his ass ......
and, unless you've missed the point, these are ALL "leaders" in religion.
Let's not talk about what religion "can" do .... let's talk about what
religion does - and has done!
Also, are you asserting atheists cannot do anything noble?
Alwyn
I see you have learnt a lot from your exchanges with Philip Saunders in
the other group.
> This is how Van Gogh (Vincent to the pedantic) - put it. "I can very well do
> without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, ill as I am,
> do without something which is greater than I, which is my life - the power
> to create."
Van Gogh was a deeply religious person who persisted in his ministry
until the authorities of the Dutch Reformed Church rejected him for
being over-enthusiastic in his approach.
Later, he understandably rejected orthodox theology but remained
profoundly religious, and this personal religion was the fount of his
artistry.
'He once wrote to his brother about his "terrible need of -- shall I say
the word, religion. Then I go out at night to paint the stars." In the
stars, as well as in the everyday facets of the simple life of the
peasants, he felt the presence of the divine.'
<http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=752>
> Inspiration is not born of religion, it uses religion as a tool to fulfil
> its potential. Artists are driven first and foremost by an all-consuming
> passion to create. Whatever means is useful to that end. Awe and wonder
> serve equally well. Sometimes even fear and despair. Goya (that's Francisco,
> not George who lives next door but one) for example may have been nominally
> a Catholic, but the Inquisitors nearly did for him too. And religion was
> clearly not the inspiration for what some would consider his most amazing
> works.
Goya was anti-clerical. One could argue that it was his passion for the
true and genuine in religion that led him to attack the venality and
hypocrisy of priests.
If the age-old religious framework had not been there, what art if any
would have been produced? We do not know the answer to that, but we can
be sure that it would have been quite different from what they left us.
Alwyn
thomas p.
"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
> In article <gfmbe0$pf6$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
>
> Leonardo to you. Not everybody had a surname in those days, and Leonardo
> was in any case born out of wedlock. "Da Vinci" simply means "from
> Vinci", to distinguish him from a Leonardo from Pistoia or a Leonardo
> from Pisa, for instance.
Why spend so much time on petty pedantry? A reasonably attentive high
school student knows the above, and it adds nothing to the discussion.
>
>> Christianity wasn't so much the inspiration as the power that held both
>> the
>> carrot (cash) and the stick (do it, or rot in prison, or worse).
>
> I think you may be right about Leonardo. See, for instance:
> <http://www.adherents.com/people/pd/Leonardo_DaVinci.html>
> This may possibly apply to Michelangelo also, though it seems to me that
> his Dante sonnets speak otherwise.
>
> (Incidentally, people who erroneously give Leonardo a surname hardly
> ever mention Michelangelo's, which was Buonarroti and serves to
> distinguish him from, among others, the painter Michelangelo Merisi [da
> Caravaggio].)
See above.
>
>> For the remainder, if those with talent hadn't been inspired by
>> Christianity, they would have found something else to be inspired by. I'm
>> not surprised that Alwyn hasn't cottoned on to this fact, from his
>> previous
>> posts.
>
> I don't know if that's a fact or not; I can only say that I find a
> unique nobility in much religious art.
Great art has been produced by believers and unbelievers and by believers in
contradicting religious doctrines.
>
> From the comment above, you must believe that I am very stupid not to
> agree with your about everything!
Perhaps you could point out one thing he said that leads you to say that.
>
>> As for selflessness, something a good deal closer to pure altruism is
>> demonstrated by those with no hope or expectation of a reward in some
>> afterlife - ie atheists. And even there it's an unconsciously programmed
>> kneejerk reaction in accordance with the principles of eons of game
>> theory -
>> reciprocal altruism.
>
> I think a lot of Christians would say that they do good for the glory of
> God, not for any self-serving reasons. I think it would be churlish of
> us not to believe that at least some of them are sincere.
Some of them may be sincere, but why do you think it is not self-serving?
If the dogma is correct, god pays his boot kissers well.
thomas p.
> In article <gfmnct$1ng$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
>> > In article <gfmbe0$pf6$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And I would add that for the likes of Da Vinci and many, many others,
>> >
>> > Leonardo to you. Not everybody had a surname in those days, and
>> > Leonardo
>> > was in any case born out of wedlock. "Da Vinci" simply means "from
>> > Vinci", to distinguish him from a Leonardo from Pistoia or a Leonardo
>> > from Pisa, for instance.
>>
>> interpreter,
>> and someone who once lived in Tuscany.
>
> Well, how's that for blowing your own trumpet!
Not much like it at all.
>
>> I simply referred to him in the
>> abbreviated form that is familiar to many people. Are you able to
>> understand
>> that?
>
> 'Leonardo' or 'Leonardo da Vinci' are the correct forms. Do you really
> want to associate yourself with the likes of Dan Brown?
Do you really enjoy being so petty?
snip
thomas p.
> In article <frpth4t0j0mor3nt4...@4ax.com>,>> I often wonder why you bend over backwards to defend Christianity
>> uncritically.
>>
>> Almost like a Christian
>
> Because I am a Christian manqué. All I lack is the necessary capacity
> for self-deception.
>
> Apart from that, our current culture, whether we like it or not, is the
> product of two thousand years of Christianity. Our history is, I think,
> incomprehensible without an understanding of that tradition.
Yes, for example the advances made in human knowledge and freedom since the
Enlightenment would be unthinkable without the weakening of Christianity
resulting from the Reformation.
>
>
> Alwyn
thomas p.
You are the one who posted a pedantic and irrelevant attack instead of
addressing the actual issue, making the above more than a little
hypocritical.
>
>
> Alwyn
thomas p.
Meaning a non-existent church would not have ordered any music.
>
>
> Alwyn
thomas p.
> In article <unoth4hcpcgroal25...@4ax.com>,
>> stupid for "not agreeing with you about everything".
>
> What is a kook exactly? It's an American term; I think 'crank' is the
> British equivalent. Anyway, I think the basic meaning is somebody who
> holds a minority view. For what it's worth, I think 'pg' is in the
> minority here. Most people are not militant atheists and do not think
> ill of the prevailing religions, even if they don't believe in them.
He is not in the minority, nor is he particularly militant. Your obvious
use of ad hominems is, on the othe hand, dishonest.
>
>
> Alwyn
pg
> In article <gfmva5$stc$1...@aioe.org>, "pg" <pg...@alpesprovence.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Let's not bother with evidence, so longs as it 'feels' important to you.
>
> I see you have learnt a lot from your exchanges with Philip Saunders in
> the other group.
Well I wouldn't quite equate you with Mr. Saunders, but if the cap fits.
>> This is how Van Gogh (Vincent to the pedantic) - put it. "I can very well
>> do
>> without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, ill as I
>> am,
>> do without something which is greater than I, which is my life - the
>> power
>> to create."
>
> Van Gogh was a deeply religious person who persisted in his ministry
> until the authorities of the Dutch Reformed Church rejected him for
> being over-enthusiastic in his approach.
>
> Later, he understandably rejected orthodox theology but remained
> profoundly religious, and this personal religion was the fount of his
> artistry.
>
> 'He once wrote to his brother about his "terrible need of -- shall I say
> the word, religion. Then I go out at night to paint the stars." In the
> stars, as well as in the everyday facets of the simple life of the
> peasants, he felt the presence of the divine.'
> <http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=752>
Are you suggesting that he did not write "I can very well do
without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, ill as I am,
do without something which is greater than I, which is my life - the power
to create." ??
It is self-explanatory, is it not?
>> Inspiration is not born of religion, it uses religion as a tool to fulfil
>> its potential. Artists are driven first and foremost by an all-consuming
>> passion to create. Whatever means is useful to that end. Awe and wonder
>> serve equally well. Sometimes even fear and despair. Goya (that's
>> Francisco,
>> not George who lives next door but one) for example may have been
>> nominally
>> a Catholic, but the Inquisitors nearly did for him too. And religion was
>> clearly not the inspiration for what some would consider his most amazing
>> works.
>
> Goya was anti-clerical. One could argue that it was his passion for the
> true and genuine in religion that led him to attack the venality and
> hypocrisy of priests.
I spent hours in the Prado marvelling at the likes of El Perro Semihundido,
the 3rd May Shootings, Saturn Devouring His Son, Old Men Eating Soup.
Precisely what religous passion were these works inspired by?
> If the age-old religious framework had not been there, what art if any
> would have been produced? We do not know the answer to that, but we can
> be sure that it would have been quite different from what they left us.
Obviously. But that's not the point that everyone is trying to get across to
you, is it. It could equally have been more inspired. Superb artists that
were condemned for the 'venality' or 'blasphemy' of their work would likely
have come to prominence. In more tolerant times, that is precisely what is
happening.
Sleepalot
> All I lack is the necessary capacity for self-deception.
Heh. How can you tell?
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Alwyn
Sleepalot <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > All I lack is the necessary capacity for self-deception.
>
> Heh. How can you tell?
Simple!
If I had the capacity for self-deception to the required extent, I would
be a Christian still.
Note that I am not claiming to be immune from self-deception, only not
susceptible enough to be a Christian.
Satisfied?
Alwyn
Sleepalot
John Smith
How many television programs, books and movies have been produced, over the
centuries, that have absolutely NOTHING to do with religon!
Religion MAY be the "big guy on the block", but it is not the ONLY guy on
the block!
>
>
> Alwyn
Hypatia
>> I didn't know that, but it seems you're right. Other examples of
>> agnostic or atheist composers writing religious music would be Fauré and
>> Elgar ('Dream of Gerontius').
No. Elgar's atheism appears to date from later.
The 'religious' music of non-believers Vaughan Williams and Britten (stacks
of it in both cases) would provide better examples.
And here are some others that will surprise the faith-heads:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/musicians/
H.
pg
Grab this Headline Animator
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:491f2467$0$56782$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
Exactly. Alwyn is an expert at making a useless truism sound like a
constructive point.
Hypatia
>>
>> 'He once wrote to his brother about his "terrible need of -- shall I say
>> the word, religion. Then I go out at night to paint the stars." In the
>> stars, as well as in the everyday facets of the simple life of the
>> peasants, he felt the presence of the divine.'
>> <http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=752>
>
> Are you suggesting that he did not write "I can very well do
> without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, ill as I am,
> do without something which is greater than I, which is my life - the power
> to create." ??
>
More to the point, for someone to take at face value a convenient term like
'the presence of the divine' is biographically dishonest, culturally
illiterate and linguistically naive: translations of things said and written
in particular interpersonal and cultural contexts, a century and more ago,
need to be handled with the greatest care and suspicion -- all the more so
when religious organisations are involved in their presentation. In this
specific case, we should note that there are a lot of not-very-Jehovah-like
things that someone like van Gogh could have been referring to when speaking
of 'the presence of the divine'.
H.
pg
Grab this Headline Animator
"Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4mNTk.89471$mr4....@newsfe19.ams2...
Absolutely. The same blatant dishonesty that is at play when theists attempt
to claim Einstein as one of their own, because he expressed a vaguely
deistic awe and wonder at the cosmos.
As Dawkins put it: "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced
there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and
sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is
religiousness. In this sense I too am religious".
pg
Ian Smith
>>
>> However, the point is that all these composers were the product of a
>> well established Catholic culture, without which these works would have
>> been impossible.
>
> Meaning a non-existent church would not have ordered any music.
There is a danger here that we conflate 'commissioned by...',
'inspired by...' and 'could not have been achieved without a belief
in...'. Clearly the first two could apply to atheists who, as we
have seen in the references posted, wrote quite exceptional church
music.
I don't see why we get so up-tight about this. I listen to Wagner,
but it doesn't mean that I believe in Odin, or that I believe that
there are 3 hand maidens deep in the Rhine.
People like to write about 'fantastic' subject (i.e. subjects that
are pure fantasy) material because it gives them an infinitely wide
canvas. Mozart's operas telling of lovers putting on a disguise and
swapping places to try to test their partner's fidelity, or of
servants swapping places with the lady of the house are hardly
real-life.
To get back to basics, then is absolutely no evidence whatsoever
that art is inspired by religion, but it certainly can be spiritual
and the source is the human spirit itself.
regards, Ian
Alex W.
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:phhth4d57ca100cvi...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:22:03 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <TjvTk.56427$me2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
>> "Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
>>> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
>>> ondon
>>
>>Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with the
>>following sentence:
>
> I don't.
>
>>'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
>>to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
>>understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
>>Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
>>those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
>>witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
>>reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
>
> Only if Christianity means anything to you.
>
> It's typical Christian self-aggrandaisment.
And you're now falling itno typical miltiant atheism.
You do not have to believe in order to appreciate.
You do not have to share Mother Theresa's belief to respect her devotion.
I do not share the beliefs of JS Bach (let alone his piety) but that does
not stop me from appreciating and admiring his work.
>
> Christianity also bequeathed 2000 years of anti-Semitism culminating
> in the holocaust, the Thirty Years War, the horrors of the
> Reformation, the Crusades, the genocides of the conquest of the
> Americas etc. It was even used to justify black slavery.
>
> Which most Christians are in serious denial about.
One does not necessarily follow from the other, and neither has anything to
do with artistic expression or the ability to appreciate the same.
Your argument, in a secular context, is: America was built on centuries of
slavery and genocide both physical and cultural. Which most Americans are
in serious denial about. Therefore not only could there not be any original
American art, but we can't possibly appreciate any such art because it would
only mean anything if we were born in the USA.
Ridiculous, isn't it?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:phhth4d57ca100cvi...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:22:03 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <TjvTk.56427$me2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
>>> "Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
>>>> ondon
>>>
>>>Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with the
>>>following sentence:
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>>>'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
>>>to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
>>>understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
>>>Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
>>>those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
>>>witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
>>>reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
>>
>> Only if Christianity means anything to you.
>>
>> It's typical Christian self-aggrandaisment.
>
>And you're now falling itno typical miltiant atheism.
And you're now resorting to personal lies again.
Once again, what did you expect the reaction to be for repeating this
honey coated, self-aggrandising Christian apologetic bullshit in an
atheist group?
Stop pretending, and stop being such a dishonest, in-your-face,
personal liar.
>You do not have to believe in order to appreciate.
Who don't you show some honesty instead of inventing things that
weren't said, liar?
>You do not have to share Mother Theresa's belief to respect her devotion.
The woman who refused pain killers to her victims because pain was the
kiss of Jesus?
The woman who offered to help victims of the Pakistani army's "rape
them until they're regent as a show of power" practices during the
civil war that led to the independence of Bangladesh? Who enforced the
Vatican line on abortion where it was inappropriate leading to
suicides and deaths from botched abortions?
The woman who flew to the US for medical treatment in a private jet
while she denied it in her hospices?
The woman to whom Charles Keating donated money stolen from savings
and load investors, who refused to pay any of it back?
Was that all "Christian compassion"?
Was the 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the
holocaust?
Were the Crusades? The slaughters of the conquest of the Americas by
the conquistadors? Black slavery justified by calling the descendents
of Ham?
>I do not share the beliefs of JS Bach (let alone his piety) but that does
>not stop me from appreciating and admiring his work.
So what, imbecile?
Why do you pretend it prevents others, liar?
It sure blinds you to Christianity's bloody history though.
And makes you lie about those who read the entire paragraph you
cut'n'pasted.
>> Christianity also bequeathed 2000 years of anti-Semitism culminating
>> in the holocaust, the Thirty Years War, the horrors of the
>> Reformation, the Crusades, the genocides of the conquest of the
>> Americas etc. It was even used to justify black slavery.
>>
>> Which most Christians are in serious denial about.
>
>One does not necessarily follow from the other, and neither has anything to
>do with artistic expression or the ability to appreciate the same.
I never said it did, imbecile.
Learn to read for comprehension and show some honesty for a change.
>Your argument, in a secular context, is: America was built on centuries of
>slavery and genocide both physical and cultural. Which most Americans are
>in serious denial about. Therefore not only could there not be any original
>American art, but we can't possibly appreciate any such art because it would
>only mean anything if we were born in the USA.
Why not stop lying and show some honesty for a change?
>Ridiculous, isn't it?
YOUR OWN DISHONEST STRAW MAN CERTAINLY IS, LIAR.
duke
>"Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:alwyn-F2D6D4....@unknown.hwng.net...
>> In article <TjvTk.56427$me2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
>> "Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
>>> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
>>> ondon
>>
>> Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with the
>> following sentence:
>>
>> 'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
>> to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
>> understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
>> Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
>> those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
>> witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
>> reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
>>
>
>Congratulations on being able to swallow so much self-serving mental
>excrement without gagging.
She kicked your ass, mm.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
thomas p.
"Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ZNqdnfI0PNzZRYLU...@posted.plusnet...
Quite.
John Brockbank
"Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
> To get back to basics, then is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that art
> is inspired by religion, but it certainly can be spiritual and the source
> is the human spirit itself.
>
I wonder if you have ever heard 'God's Song' by Randy Newman, and his latest
collection of songs. Plainly inspired by religion. (I think that he is
Jewish and, I guess an atheist).
There is no such thing as 'the human spirit'. If you use that poetical term
it is as well to define it, or use other words to express what is meant,
such as 'volition' or 'will' or 'thought'.
Alex W.
> To get back to basics, then is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that art
> is inspired by religion, but it certainly can be spiritual and the source
> is the human spirit itself.
Have you ever seen Aboriginal art? One and the same canvas is
simultaneously:
-- a landscape complete with travelling directions and tips on sources of
food and water;
-- a commentary and teaching aid for Aboriginal law;
-- a statement of religious belief by re-telling a particular myth.
The Aboriginal artist draws this landscape and no other because he is, by
religious right, the guardian of that particular patch. He expounds on a
particular law because it is associated with this particular piece of land
through the religious Dreamtime myth which is set on this area; in turn, the
myth is his to tell because it is his right and duty to do so by right of
lineage and apprenticeship.
In short, the Aborigine does not make the distinction between religious and
secular. One is the other. To strictly separate between them is a
particular kink of modern Western thought, and it would be unprofitable if
not outright dishonest of us to apply our yardstick to their view of life.
Alex W.
"mark" <no-on...@noads.com> wrote in message
news:oemdnVSfg9WNvYLU...@bt.com...
> I've seen this argument before (indeed Dawkins has referred to it also..)
> and that creativity is a direct result of the prevailing religious
> culture.
> It seems to me that it is an impossible notion to prove that we would not
> have the creative works that exist without our religious *background*..
From a purely formal perspective, Verdi's Requiem must be the product of
Catholicism, or at the very least Christianity. No other religion developed
a liturgy for the dead in this particular form. Verdi the Buddhist might
have written other equally immortal works, but he could not possibly have
composed the Requiem because as a formal framework it simply would not exist
for him.
> Essentially - and this is another great 'christian' notion in their
> insertion of *inspiration* into many facets of life, including the bible -
> we would need to debate whether or not we considered, or there was
> evidence to suggest, that artistic creativity was anything but an
> individual expression that could/should/does exist (..if not entirely)
> outside of the cultural influences that abound.
I would certainly quibble at limiting the argument to *individual* artistic
expression. In music and other performing arts, the emphasis is very much
on group activity. Painting, too, has collaborative elements: Titian or
Rembrandt did not shut themselves in their ateliers painting, they ran
workshops and outsourced much of their production. Art as practised by
indigenous people such as the Navajo or Australian Aborigines is almost
always a community effort, too.
Generally, though, from the very earliest times we have evidence of
creativity expressed in all the arts throughout all cultures and societies.
I would therefore not hesitate to call the creative impulse a fundamental
human drive, on a level with hunger, sex or social status. It is in the
particular differences of cultural expression and preoccupation where we
could argue the relative influence of religion. Islamic artistic impulses,
for instance, were redirected into abstraction and calligraphy by virtue on
a ban on the representation of the human being.
> Indeed, it may be a useful exercise to consider if there is any
> correlation between creativity and faith or if religious belief is
> promoted (surreptitiously?) as a *beautiful* by product of a non secular
> society by those with an agenda of promoting the notion of faith in
> general.
IMO, the usefulness of religion as a motivator of artistic expression can be
taken as a given. Fervent faith is so urgent an emotion that it wants and
needs to be expressed, to be shared -- certainly in deed (minstering to the
sick, missionarising etc), so why not in other forms of expression?
> Perhaps the best we might achieve is to consider artistic creativity and
> examine the evidence (..surely?) that many creative people are/have been
> religious and many have not....
> ..and that's before we get into any notional discussion about what
> constitutes (broadly) Art...
Art, like pornography, is what the observer thinks it is....
Ian Smith
> "mark" <no-on...@noads.com> wrote in message
> news:oemdnVSfg9WNvYLU...@bt.com...
>
>
>> I've seen this argument before (indeed Dawkins has referred to it also..)
>> and that creativity is a direct result of the prevailing religious
>> culture.
>> It seems to me that it is an impossible notion to prove that we would not
>> have the creative works that exist without our religious *background*..
>
> From a purely formal perspective, Verdi's Requiem must be the product of
> Catholicism, or at the very least Christianity.
You may have missed the point of the discussion...
It was being argued that religion was necessary for art - that it
was in some way a necessary precursor.
I was pointing out that Verdi's Requiem - very well respected as a
piece of religious music - was written by an atheist, which
illustrates that the original assertion was completely false.
regards, Ian
Ian Smith
>
> I wonder if you have ever heard 'God's Song' by Randy Newman, and his latest
> collection of songs. Plainly inspired by religion. (I think that he is
> Jewish and, I guess an atheist).
No, but I'll look out for it - thanks.
>
> There is no such thing as 'the human spirit'.
Well, thanks for letting us have the benefit of your superior
understanding on this point. I now feel that I have someone I can
turn to when I'm struggling to understand the world around me -
someone who clearly knows everything there is to know.
Oddly, bearing in mind your superior knowledge on the subject,
others appear not to agree:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_spirit
John - I'd suggest that, if you have nothing better to contribute
than simple denial, without providing any justification for your
position, then you be better off not posting at all.
regards, Ian
Ian Smith
>
> In short, the Aborigine does not make the distinction between religious and
> secular. One is the other. To strictly separate between them is a
> particular kink of modern Western thought, and it would be unprofitable if
> not outright dishonest of us to apply our yardstick to their view of life.
I'm not sure what point you are making. Religion and faith can
inspire art, but that doesn't show that art must be inspired by
religion or faith or that art cannot come about without it.
regards, Ian
Ian Smith
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:phhth4d57ca100cvi...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:22:03 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <TjvTk.56427$me2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
>>> "Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
>>>> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
>>>> ondon
>>> Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with the
>>> following sentence:
>> I don't.
>>
>>> 'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
>>> to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
>>> understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
>>> Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
>>> those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
>>> witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
>>> reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
>> Only if Christianity means anything to you.
>>
>> It's typical Christian self-aggrandaisment.
>
> And you're now falling itno typical miltiant atheism.
> You do not have to believe in order to appreciate.
> You do not have to share Mother Theresa's belief to respect her devotion.
What?
She provided no real medical care. The editor of The Lancet reported
that her facilities were so bad that she had no effective form of
pain relief.
Her one and only objective was to have access to the dying so that
they (hindus and muslims) could be baptised before the died, which
she did against their will and wishes.
She collected millions in the US, Germany, UK, Australia and other
domains and moved it immediately to domains that had no mandatory
reporting for charities. There is no evidence that any significant
part of this money was spend on the needy - it is widely believed
that it was passed to the vatican.
One sister in the US resigned her holy orders after receiving a huge
donation from a mentally ill old lady. Her family warned that she
had given all her money over and that she had no funds to continue
payment for her own medical care and ongoing needs. The sister was
instructed to lie - by telling the family that the money had already
been spent on care of the needy, when it was sat in a US bank account.
You are asking me to respect her devotion? She deserves no respect
whatsoever. She was devout - certainly, pious and completely
uncaring, with no humanity at all. There is nothing there that
deserves any respect.
regards, Ian
John Smith
>> news:oemdnVSfg9WNvYLU...@bt.com...
>>
>>
>>> I've seen this argument before (indeed Dawkins has referred to it
>>> also..) and that creativity is a direct result of the prevailing
>>> religious culture.
>>> It seems to me that it is an impossible notion to prove that we would
>>> not have the creative works that exist without our religious
>>> *background*..
>>
>> From a purely formal perspective, Verdi's Requiem must be the product of
>> Catholicism, or at the very least Christianity.
Huh?
Verdi's Requiem is the product of .... Verdi!
Christopher A. Lee
It was a product of his skill as an operatic comoposer.
And he described himself as an agnostic.
John Smith
> Alex W. wrote:
>> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:phhth4d57ca100cvi...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:22:03 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <TjvTk.56427$me2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
>>>> "Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
>>>>> ondon
>>>> Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with
>>>> the
>>>> following sentence:
>>> I don't.
>>>
>>>> 'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
>>>> to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
>>>> understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
>>>> Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
>>>> those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
>>>> witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
>>>> reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
>>> Only if Christianity means anything to you.
>>>
>>> It's typical Christian self-aggrandaisment.
>>
>> And you're now falling itno typical miltiant atheism.
>> You do not have to believe in order to appreciate.
You're right .... I particularly like the "Monty Python" "Spanish
Inquisition" sketch!
>> You do not have to share Mother Theresa's belief to respect her devotion.
To what? Her extemist anti-abortion crusade?
Her outrageous defense of someone who bilked millions from older Americans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating
Lincoln (Savings and Loan) stayed in business; from mid-1987 to April 1989,
its assets grew from $3.91 billion to $5.46 billion. During this time, the
parent American Continental Corporation was desperate for cash inflow to
make up for losses in real estate purchases and projects. Lincoln's branch
managers and tellers convinced customers to replace their federally-insured
certificates of deposit with higher-yielding bond certificates of American
Continental; the customers later said they were never properly informed that
the bonds were uninsured and very risky given the state of American
Continental's finances. Indeed, the regulators had already adjudged the
bonds to have no solvent backing. FDIC chair L. William Seidman would later
write that Lincoln's push to get depositors to switch was "one of the most
heartless and cruel frauds in modern memory."
In September 1990, Keating and his associates were indicted by the State of
California on 42 counts related to having duped Lincoln's customers into
buying worthless junk bonds of American Continental Corporation; Keating
went to jail when he could not post a $5 million bond. He was convicted in
December 1991 of 17 counts of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy.
Mother Teresa asked the court to show leniency to Keating, as he had
contributed considerable sums to her charitable operations. However, in
April 1992, California Superior Court Judge Lance Ito gave Keating the
maximum 10-year prison sentence, quoting Woody Guthrie's line that "More
people have suffered from the point of a fountain pen than from a gun."
Keating went to the medium-security Federal Correctional Institution, Tucson
to serve his time.
Her "devotion" is to the Roman Catholic church; not humanity!
Alwyn
Ian Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
> Alex W. wrote:
>
> > You do not have to share Mother Theresa's belief to respect her devotion.
>
> What?
>
> She provided no real medical care. The editor of The Lancet reported
> that her facilities were so bad that she had no effective form of
> pain relief.
Mother Theresa, of whom it seems almost blasphemous even to
non-Christians to speak other than in the highest tones, was an
enormously successful mythmaker and self-publicist. She had a huge
devotion to the R.C. church, which is precisely why they are in such a
rush to canonise her, but evinced very little in the way of common
humanity. If people knew what she was really like, they would not see
her as a great advertisement for Christianity.
Alwyn
Alwyn
Ian Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>
> You may have missed the point of the discussion...
>
> It was being argued that religion was necessary for art - that it
> was in some way a necessary precursor.
I must have missed that - can you point to somewhere in this thread
where somebody advocated that extreme position?
Alwyn
Ian Smith
You said...
"However, the point is that all these composers were the product of
well established Catholic culture, without which these works would
have been impossible."
regards, Ian
Sleepalot
There's also the matter of "Christian Rock": that ball-less,
soul-less, passionless imitation of great contemporary
music.
There's also the matter Christian condemnation of real Rock
music, as played by highly talented and creative people.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
John Brockbank
Blimey you are a bit damn snooty today. I will point out that just because
'others' go on a lot about something such as God or human spirits does not
mean that I have to cave in and believe it. It says in my paper today that
50% of people think that the majority of crime is committed by the young.
(Baloney)
Still, perhaps I am being too short. So I will say that 'spirit' according
to my understanding can be either metaphysical (so existence or otherwise
depends upon belief only) or metaphorical (so not actually existing at all).
If we are these days adding in a third meaning that it refers to doing
things such as buiilding nests or having curtains then I just retreat into
grumpy mode that words should not mean anything you like.
Alwyn
Ian Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
<sigh>
I would have thought that the point above was so trivial that nobody
would disagree with it.
Shall we take as an instance J. S. Bach, who was one step removed from
Catholicism but, at least according to the evidence of the Mass in B
Minor, desirous of returning to it, if only for the sake of a career
change?
What sort of career would Bach have had if it wasn't for the German
church organ tradition? There would have been no chorale preludes,
probably no organ preludes and fugues, probably also no church cantatas
and no Passions. What works of his would have been transmitted to us
today? Well, maybe the Brandenburg and other concertos and the non-organ
keyboard works; however, one could argue that these secular works do not
establish him as one of the greatest of all composers, which is his
reputation today.
In other words, I was saying that the whole artistic landscape of the
past would have been profoundly different without our Christian
heritage. Christianity is an essential part of our cultural history,
whether we like it or not.
Alwyn
Christopher A. Lee
The first time I heard something called "God" being "explained" as a
spirit, the 8-year old Chris Lee said "like a bottle of gin?".
The school teacher who had stupidly tried to convert a kid who had
never been raised theist, wrote to my parents accusing me of
blasphemy, and they laughed at her in the subsequent meeting with the
head master.
Hypatia
> past would have been profoundly different without our Christian
> heritage. Christianity is an essential part of our cultural history,
> whether we like it or not.
This monomaniac drivelling is going to establish you as a grade-A kook.
'The whole artistic landscape of the past would have been profoundly
different without our [sic!] Christian heritage. Christianity is an
essential part of our [sic!] cultural history, whether we like it or not'...
What manipulative bullshit!! Christian beliefs as such aren't even remotely
inferable from *the actual artistic substance* of the text-containing works
you're drooling over, and all your prattling about J.S. Bach et al merely
shows that your intellect isn't up to dealing with the difference between
the history of art and the sociological situation of the artist.
What the hell is wrong with your brain?? It would be every bit as true --
and every bit as *insignificant* -- to say that 'the whole artistic
landscape of the past would have been profoundly different without syphilis.
Syphilis is an essential part of our cultural history, whether we like it or
not'. And the only reason that kooks like you never think of demanding
cultural recognition for syphilis, is that syphilis is one infectious,
mind-destroying horror that *doesn't build itself powerful institutions*...
H.
Alwyn
"Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
> "Alwyn" <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:
> >
> > In other words, I was saying that the whole artistic landscape of the
> > past would have been profoundly different without our Christian
> > heritage. Christianity is an essential part of our cultural history,
> > whether we like it or not.
>
> This monomaniac drivelling is going to establish you as a grade-A kook.
My kooking isn't half bad, actually, though I say so myself, though I
have yet to attain Marco Pierre White standard.
> 'The whole artistic landscape of the past would have been profoundly
> different without our [sic!] Christian heritage. Christianity is an
> essential part of our [sic!] cultural history, whether we like it or not'...
>
> What manipulative bullshit!! Christian beliefs as such aren't even remotely
> inferable from *the actual artistic substance* of the text-containing works
> you're drooling over, and all your prattling about J.S. Bach et al merely
> shows that your intellect isn't up to dealing with the difference between
> the history of art and the sociological situation of the artist.
>
> What the hell is wrong with your brain?? It would be every bit as true --
> and every bit as *insignificant* -- to say that 'the whole artistic
> landscape of the past would have been profoundly different without syphilis.
> Syphilis is an essential part of our cultural history, whether we like it or
> not'. And the only reason that kooks like you never think of demanding
> cultural recognition for syphilis, is that syphilis is one infectious,
> mind-destroying horror that *doesn't build itself powerful institutions*...
Not really. I doubt if syphilis has ever had a profound effect on any
more than a small minority of people in Europe. Maybe Beethoven would
have lived to compose a twelfth symphony, who knows? But try to imagine
the history of Britain from, say, the time of Alfred the Great without
considering Christian influences. How much could we understand of
English and Scottish history between the sixteenth and eighteenth
centuries without taking into account the struggle against Catholicism?
It has even been said that in Ireland and in Wales, the history of the
faith is the history of the people.
Alwyn
thisi...@nowhere.com
You seem to be labouring your Bach point. Apart from the fact
that large organs were almost exclusively housed in churches
most his organ works are secular. Whilst his famous Toccata
and fugue (secular) is popular his dull as dishwater chorales
and such like are rarely heard outside of religious services.
You will never hear any of his works being requested for weddings
other than the T&F. His contemporary Handel wrote his series of organ
concertos for smaller chamber organs which were usually housed in
large houses and palaces. He is most famous work is the Messiah
and justly popular work but he also wrote much that was secular.
Another contemporary of Bach is Vivaldi and his secular Four Seasons
is one of the most popular works played. He wrote much secular
music.
On the whole composers avoided writing for the church as they
preferred the freedom to express themselves as they
wished something they could not do under a stifling church control.
Mozart for example never finished his one choral work but instead
wrote several operas.
Religion also tried to supress music. The great troubador
tradition was ruthless supressed by the church since they
could not control the stories they told.
If anything religion held back the development of music rather
than advanced it, as it did in general fo the arts as it demanded
endlessly repated formulaic works a recipe for stagnation.
Polyphonoc music was seen as blasphemous by elements of the
church which remained firmy rooted in monody.
Early protestants banned music and art altogether from their
churches. Walk into any church in Switzerland and all you
will find are pews, a plain table at the East end, a simple
pulpit and white washed walls. Much work was destroyed
by the iconoclasts.
We have seen modern examples of that from the Taleban
It was only when music shook off church control that it
began to soar and became inspirational.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Ian Smith
>
>
> What sort of career would Bach have had if it wasn't for the German
> church organ tradition? There would have been no chorale preludes,
> probably no organ preludes and fugues, probably also no church cantatas
> and no Passions. What works of his would have been transmitted to us
> today? Well, maybe the Brandenburg and other concertos and the non-organ
> keyboard works; however, one could argue that these secular works do not
> establish him as one of the greatest of all composers, which is his
> reputation today.
>
> In other words, I was saying that the whole artistic landscape of the
> past would have been profoundly different without our Christian
> heritage.
None of this is in dispute. However, we can't know *how* it would
have been different. Mozart was commissioned by those with money and
wrote some raunchy operas. I have no idea what Bach may have written
if he had not been commissioned by the church - it may have been
better, who knows?
> Christianity is an essential part of our cultural history, whether we like it or not.
I sometimes wonder if you are a spy placed here by the religious
establishment. We have endured months of European christians
lobbying for inclusion of words recognising that "Christianity is an
essential part of our cultural history" in the European constitution.
It has been pointed out that that the Islamic Moors also contributed
significantly to our European history, and that christianity has not
had that noble a history, at times. I certainly don't agree that it
has been essential - we may have done better without it.
regards, Ian
Christopher A. Lee
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>Alwyn wrote:
>
>> What sort of career would Bach have had if it wasn't for the German
>> church organ tradition? There would have been no chorale preludes,
>> probably no organ preludes and fugues, probably also no church cantatas
>> and no Passions. What works of his would have been transmitted to us
>> today? Well, maybe the Brandenburg and other concertos and the non-organ
>> keyboard works; however, one could argue that these secular works do not
>> establish him as one of the greatest of all composers, which is his
>> reputation today.
>>
>> In other words, I was saying that the whole artistic landscape of the
>> past would have been profoundly different without our Christian
>> heritage.
>
>None of this is in dispute. However, we can't know *how* it would
>have been different. Mozart was commissioned by those with money and
>wrote some raunchy operas. I have no idea what Bach may have written
>if he had not been commissioned by the church - it may have been
>better, who knows?
As several of us have pointed out, Verdi's Requiem was the product of
his being one of the great operatic composers.
He was an agnostic.
>> Christianity is an essential part of our cultural history, whether we like
>>it or not.
As is our pagan heritage.
But the imbecile is (like most Christians) in major denial about
Christianity's bloody history.
We are a product of that as well.
>I sometimes wonder if you are a spy placed here by the religious
>establishment. We have endured months of European christians
>lobbying for inclusion of words recognising that "Christianity is an
>essential part of our cultural history" in the European constitution.
I've had my doubts for a long time.
But I seriously wonder what he expected by posting that saccharine
coated apologetic paragraph from an in-denial "Professor of Catholic
Studies", in an atheist newsgroup.
Many of the responses were to his "good works" which weren't really,
crap.
And he's in major denial about the Reformation, the Thirty Years War,
the Crusades two millennia of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in
the holocaust, etc. All of which left their mark on European culture.
But modern European culture came after it managed to drag itself out
of the Christian dark ages, with the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment. The church had actively tried to stifle progress.
>It has been pointed out that that the Islamic Moors also contributed
>significantly to our European history, and that christianity has not
>had that noble a history, at times. I certainly don't agree that it
>has been essential - we may have done better without it.
We are lucky to have the works of the ancient Greek writers which only
survived in Moorish Spain. Christians destroyed them wherever they
found them, eg in the Library of Alexandria.
And then of course there is the influence of the pagan Norse and
Germans.
>regards, Ian
Alwyn
thisi...@nowhere.com wrote:
>
> You seem to be labouring your Bach point. Apart from the fact
> that large organs were almost exclusively housed in churches
> most his organ works are secular.
Did Bach actually say the following, or is it a fable?
'The thorough bass is the most perfect foundation of music, being played
with both hands in such manner that the left hand plays the notes
written down while the right adds consonances and dissonances, in order
to make a well-sounding harmony to the Glory of God and the permissible
delectation of the spirit; and the aim and final reason, as of all
music, so of the thorough bass should be none else but the Glory of God
and the recreation of the mind. Where this is not observed, there is no
real music but only devilish hubbub.'
<http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Topics/Religion-5.htm>
In other words, one may have to be careful in drawing the distinction
between religious and secular in Bach's music.
> Whilst his famous Toccata and fugue (secular) is popular
The one in D minor (not the Dorian)? Some of those who are supposed to
know about these things say it isn't a toccata and fugue, is not in the
key of D minor and wasn't written by Bach. Nonetheless, I agree that it
is very exciting music, and, as you say, it sounds eminently secular.
> his dull as dishwater chorales
> and such like are rarely heard outside of religious services.
We obviously have different tastes. I never tire of listening to some of
them, like _Wachet auf_.
<http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YFrVdo5c4mg>
> You will never hear any of his works being requested for weddings
> other than the T&F.
I've no idea, but I'd expect pieces such as _Sheep May Safely Graze_ and
_Jesu,Joy of Man's Desiring_ to remain among the popular classics for a
long time to come.
> His contemporary Handel wrote his series of organ
> concertos for smaller chamber organs which were usually housed in
> large houses and palaces.
Indeed, but I think he learnt to play the organ in German churches.
> He is most famous work is the Messiah
> and justly popular work but he also wrote much that was secular.
Yes, but I think he spent most of his time on operas, which had mixed
success in his day, were then long forgotten and are only now being
revived.
> Another contemporary of Bach is Vivaldi and his secular Four Seasons
> is one of the most popular works played. He wrote much secular
> music.
Of course he did, though he was a priest by vocation and also wrote
sacred works. Rightly or wrongly, most music historians would not put
him in the same class as Bach and Handel.
> On the whole composers avoided writing for the church as they
> preferred the freedom to express themselves as they
> wished something they could not do under a stifling church control.
> Mozart for example never finished his one choral work but instead
> wrote several operas.
Mozart completed a large number of choral works. Are you referring to
the Requiem? As I recall, Mozart received a commission for that from a
nobleman in 1791, when he was already on his last legs; he did not live
to finish it. To my ear, in any case, the best religious music by Mozart
was written for the Freemasons; one could perhaps say that Freemasonry
was Mozart's real religion.
> Religion also tried to supress music. The great troubador
> tradition was ruthless supressed by the church since they
> could not control the stories they told.
Not sure about 'ruthlessly suppressed'. It was certainly disapproved of
by churchmen because it celebrated adulterous love. But remember that
the troubadour tradition is an important strand in the poetry of Dante,
which can perhaps be regarded as the literary _summa_ of medieval
Catholicism.
> If anything religion held back the development of music rather
> than advanced it, as it did in general fo the arts as it demanded
> endlessly repated formulaic works a recipe for stagnation.
I'm sure many churchmen demanded that, and that is mostly what they got,
but church music developed nonetheless.
> Polyphonoc music was seen as blasphemous by elements of the
> church which remained firmy rooted in monody.
But there is a lot of polyphonic church music about. The reactionary
elements you mention obviously did not prevail.
> Early protestants banned music and art altogether from their
> churches. Walk into any church in Switzerland and all you
> will find are pews, a plain table at the East end, a simple
> pulpit and white washed walls.
That's Calvinism for you. Only the unaccompanied singing of psalms was
to be allowed in church.
> Much work was destroyed by the iconoclasts.
>
> We have seen modern examples of that from the Taleban
But the Taleban are seen by the vast majority of Muslims worldwide as
extremists.
> It was only when music shook off church control that it
> began to soar and became inspirational.
Early music enthusiasts would hardly agree with you there. And of
course, secular music has always thrived alongside the sacred.
Alwyn
Alwyn
Ian Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>
> I sometimes wonder if you are a spy placed here by the religious
> establishment.
I would make a very bad spy. Spies operate in secret, yet I have been
all too transparent here in this forum.
> We have endured months of European christians
> lobbying for inclusion of words recognising that "Christianity is an
> essential part of our cultural history" in the European constitution.
I see that as an attempt by conservatives to defend European culture
against Islam, which is a growing force here.
> It has been pointed out that that the Islamic Moors also contributed
> significantly to our European history, and that christianity has not
> had that noble a history, at times. I certainly don't agree that it
> has been essential - we may have done better without it.
Oh yes, but I think you will find that Arab philosophy was filtered
through the minds of Christian thinkers. Knowledge of Aristotle, for
instance, was first acquired from Latin versions of Arabic translations
of the works of the ancient Greek philosopher.
Alwyn
Alex W.
> whatsoever. She was devout - certainly, pious and completely uncaring,
> with no humanity at all. There is nothing there that deserves any respect.
OK, so it's a controversial example.
So pick another one.
How about the Dalai Lama, or is there a whiff of corruption about him as
well?
Alex W.
"John Smith" <bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4hbUk.1058$4g5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
But he would not and could not have written the Requiem if he had been born
Mustafa al-Verdi in Baghdad or Verdi Chung in Beijing. The medium was
strictly Western and the form is strictly Christian, right down to the text.
Alex W.
It would of course be nonsense to claim that art per se and in itself must
spring from religion; it is a primal impulse, after all. I merely showed
that it is possible to have an independent artistic tradition which can be
said to spring from roots which hold *everything* to be religious. It's an
outlier but even one exception serves to force us to qualify our views.
Beyond that, I'd say it very heavily depends on the individuals concerned.
Da Vinci created both sacred and temporal art, but where is the secular
inspiration in the art and dedication of a Russian icon painter?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME ITS MAGNIFICENCE IS BECAUSE HE WAS ONE OF
THE GREAT OPERATIC COMPOSERS.
It is actually irrelevant where he got the text from.
>
>
>
Alex W.
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:42:41 -0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:phhth4d57ca100cvi...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:22:03 +0000, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <TjvTk.56427$me2....@newsfe11.ams2>,
>>>> "Hypatia" <Hp...@it.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.calicoi.com/c/1847751/27291/LSzmcVw/jKpo?redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2
>>>>> Fwww.opendemocracy.net%2Farticle%2Falong-the-precipice-visions-of-atheism-in-l
>>>>> ondon
>>>>
>>>>Parts of it make a lot of sense. For instance, I entirely agree with the
>>>>following sentence:
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>>
>>>>'Whatever we mean by that word "God", there is inspiration and mystery
>>>>to be discovered in the legacy which Christianity has bequeathed to our
>>>>understanding of the world - in its music, art and architecture, in its
>>>>Masses and devotions, in the compassionate and selfless endeavours of
>>>>those who work in hospitals and refugee-camps around the world,
>>>>witnessing to the existential possibility of a human world rooted in
>>>>reconciling hope rather than competitive nihilism.'
>>>
>>> Only if Christianity means anything to you.
>>>
>>> It's typical Christian self-aggrandaisment.
>>
>>And you're now falling itno typical miltiant atheism.
>
Why would I bother to lie?
I don't know you that well.
>
> Once again, what did you expect the reaction to be for repeating this
> honey coated, self-aggrandising Christian apologetic bullshit in an
> atheist group?
Do make up your mind, please.
Now you berate me for quoting the OP, further down you accuse me of
snippage.
>
> Stop pretending, and stop being such a dishonest, in-your-face,
> personal liar.
>
>>You do not have to believe in order to appreciate.
>
> Who don't you show some honesty instead of inventing things that
> weren't said, liar?
You said it yourself.
The OP (Hypatia) stated that it is possible to be inspired by the cultural
products of Christianity (such as music) or the examples of those who do
actually make charitable or selfless life choices based on their faith.
This, you flat-out denied.
>
>>You do not have to share Mother Theresa's belief to respect her devotion.
>
> The woman who refused pain killers to her victims because pain was the
> kiss of Jesus?
>
> The woman who offered to help victims of the Pakistani army's "rape
> them until they're regent as a show of power" practices during the
> civil war that led to the independence of Bangladesh? Who enforced the
> Vatican line on abortion where it was inappropriate leading to
> suicides and deaths from botched abortions?
>
> The woman who flew to the US for medical treatment in a private jet
> while she denied it in her hospices?
>
> The woman to whom Charles Keating donated money stolen from savings
> and load investors, who refused to pay any of it back?
>
> Was that all "Christian compassion"?
>
> Was the 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the
> holocaust?
>
> Were the Crusades? The slaughters of the conquest of the Americas by
> the conquistadors? Black slavery justified by calling the descendents
> of Ham?
What does that have to do with the ability to appreciate art?
>
>>I do not share the beliefs of JS Bach (let alone his piety) but that does
>>not stop me from appreciating and admiring his work.
>
> So what, imbecile?
>
> Why do you pretend it prevents others, liar?
I don't.
You did.
You stated explicitly that it is only possible to admire and be inspired
"Only if Christianity means anything to you".
>
> It sure blinds you to Christianity's bloody history though.
>
> And makes you lie about those who read the entire paragraph you
> cut'n'pasted.
I double-checked.
I quoted your post in its entirety.
>
>>> Christianity also bequeathed 2000 years of anti-Semitism culminating
>>> in the holocaust, the Thirty Years War, the horrors of the
>>> Reformation, the Crusades, the genocides of the conquest of the
>>> Americas etc. It was even used to justify black slavery.
>>>
>>> Which most Christians are in serious denial about.
>>
>>One does not necessarily follow from the other, and neither has anything
>>to
>>do with artistic expression or the ability to appreciate the same.
>
> I never said it did, imbecile.
You did.
"Only if Christianity means anything to you"
>
> Learn to read for comprehension and show some honesty for a change.
>
>>Your argument, in a secular context, is: America was built on centuries of
>>slavery and genocide both physical and cultural. Which most Americans are
>>in serious denial about. Therefore not only could there not be any
>>original
>>American art, but we can't possibly appreciate any such art because it
>>would
>>only mean anything if we were born in the USA.
>
> Why not stop lying and show some honesty for a change?
>
>>Ridiculous, isn't it?
>
> YOUR OWN DISHONEST STRAW MAN CERTAINLY IS, LIAR.
Kindly refrain from shouting at me.
It is rude.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You tell me.
Was it some other Alex W. who said to me : "And you're now falling
itno typical miltiant atheism"?
Alex W.
It is actually irrelevant to this point whether his work is magnificent.
It may as well have been utter crap.
The point remains that it is impossible to write a requiem mass outside of a
Christian context. A requiem is the liturgy of a Christian mass for the
dead, set to music. A Buddhist composer could not have written the music
for an Agnus Dei, Sanctus or Dies Irae because those prayers in their
context do not exist in Buddhism. Forget Verdi -- Faure, Durufle, Mozart or
Dvorak, none of them would have written a requiem if they had not been
working within a Christian context. No Christianity, no requiem. In fact,
the one requiem I know of whose composer did come from outside the Western
Christian culture was also explicitly Christian (the Requiem for Formosa
Martyrs by Hsiao Tyzen).
Do feel free to browse among the 2000+ composers listed on
and see how many you can spot whose culture was not Christian.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
We were talking about Verdi's Requiem.
Whose magnificence was because he was one of the great operatic
composers.
It's not just any old Requiem.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>"Alex W." wrote:
>
>>> No Christianity, no requiem. In fact,
>>>the one requiem I know of whose composer did come from outside the Western
>>>Christian culture was also explicitly Christian (the Requiem for Formosa
>>>Martyrs by Hsiao Tyzen).
>
>> We were talking about Verdi's Requiem.
>>
>> Whose magnificence was because he was one of the great operatic
>> composers.
>>
>> It's not just any old Requiem.
>
>And don't forget that whatever it's called, a memorial for the dead is
>something *every* culture has, and every religion has ceremonies
>honoring the dead, either in general or specific people, so for that
>reason also it's utterly incorrect to say Verdi could not have composed
>his requiem without Christianity.
It would have been different.
I happen to like good church music. But the composers of that also
wrote good secular music. I'm English. We have a tradition of great
choral music. Much of which is secular.
One wonders why the poster focussed only on the perceived good bits of
"Christian heritage", ignoring the bad.
British and Western European culture is derived from the sum total of
what went before.
Not just Christian but pre Christian Greek, Anglo Saxon, Norse,
German, Celtic etc.
It took a thousand years or more for Europe to drag itself out of the
Christian dark ages, with the Renaissnce and the Enlightenment which
Christianity fought against. Not to mention the evils of the
reformation.
The "Professor of Catholic Studies", the poster who said he agreed
with the saccharine coated apologetic bullshit, and this poster have
all ignored the bad bits.
Which also contributed to the Europe we have today.
Hypatia
>
> You are asking me to respect her devotion? She deserves no respect
> whatsoever. She was devout - certainly, pious and completely uncaring,
> with no humanity at all. There is nothing there that deserves any respect.
Interestingly, now that we have evidence of the feebleness of the Calcutta
Ghoul's own religious belief (see the sources: they're out there), the very
same idiots who previously celebrated her for the 'inspiring' nature of her
'faith' and 'piety' ... are now happily celebrating her for the 'inspiring'
nature of her 'struggles against unbelief'...
H.
Christopher A. Lee
Which she "resolved" by imposing her weird beliefs on her victims.
Denying them the treatment they needed because pain was "the kiss of
Jesus" - while she flew to the US in a private jet for the best
medical treatment she could get for herself.
>H.
>
Hypatia
>
> The OP (Hypatia) stated that it is possible to be inspired by the cultural
> products of Christianity (such as music) or the examples of those who do
> actually make charitable or selfless life choices based on their faith.
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, ASSHOLE!
I NEVER DESCRIBED *ANYTHING* MEANINGFULLY ARTISTIC AS 'CULTURAL PRODUCTS OF
CHRISTIANITY', AND I HAD *NOTHING* TO SAY ABOUT 'CHARITABLE OR SELFLESS
CHOICES' BASED ON 'FAITH'.
TAKE YOUR LIES AND SHOVE THEM UP YOUR LYING ARSE.
H.